Consciousness Trilemma

[Edwardo Piet]

To say it doesn't exist is to say you're not conscious. To say it's not real is to say you're not experiencing it. And the experience of consciousness is what consciousness is. It's neither the case that you're not conscious or you're not experiencing consciousness.

LOLNO, Ham, just no.  I'm saying (and dennet was saying) that consciousness doesn't exist as described and insisted upon by people who don't realize that they are proposing a humonculus with an attached system capable of processing in zero time.  This has been explained to you from the outset, and yet you persist.  Start over from there.  

Sorry moron but you can say "LOLNO, Ham, just no." all you want and it doesn't change the fact I'm absolutely right in what I'm saying.

To say that consciousness doesn't exist is to say that you and no one is conscious because it's impossible to be conscious when consciousness doesn't exist. To say it's not real is to say you're not experiencing it because it's impossible to experience something without that experience itself really being experienced. You can be experiencing something that isn't really there in objective reality but it's still real in experience.

Now to deal with your shit:

I'm saying (and dennet was saying) that consciousness doesn't exist as described and insisted upon by people who don't realize that they are proposing a humonculus with an attached system capable of processing in zero time.

The fact people are deluded about the mechanics of what they think consciousness is, doesn't make the experience of what they think consciousness is an illusion. That's an non-sequitur.

He's right about there not being a homunculous or Cartesian theater. And he's right about his multiple drafts model about how consciousness works. That's all very interesting and correct mechanics but it's completely irrelevant to his non-sequitur and logically fallacious conclusion that therefore consciousness itself is an illusion.

Pretty soon I'm going to be quoting where you yourself agreed with me and then quoting your own contradictions against yourself and it will make you look really foolish. I hope you have fun watching that while you try to wriggle out of it. You've already said that consciousness is real but people are in error about how it works. That is my position. That it's not an illusion people are just in error with how they think it works. They're deluded, they have a delusion not an illusion and it's about the mechanics not about the experience of consciousness.

And as for Jor, well, she says I'm making "empty predicates" but using the dictionary definition of consciousness being conscious experience is not an "empty predicate"... it's merely defining all consciousness as "an illusion" that's an empty predicate. And that's at best. At worst it's this confusion about what an illusion actually is and merely defining being delusional about the mechanics of something as identical to the experience of consciousness being illusory. That's as pathetic as when Dennett merely defines the computer screen on a desktop as the "user illusion" when the screen is very real as are the icons... as real as the hardware of the computer...and the fact that many people are deluded about how computers work doesn't make the screen not really there and a "user illusion". The fact Dennett makes such a terrible analogy and that he compares the so-called lillusion of consciousness to the so-called user illusion on a computer desktop... just betrays what utter nonsense he's talking. He's not right about everything. There's literally no logical reason to conclude that conscious experience or a computer desktop is an "illusion". It's utter nonsense. It doesn't matter what we discover about the mechanics about how something works and how most people are wrong about it, that just makes most people deluded about the mechanics it doesn't make the experience an illusion. Experiences are not illusions. Experiences are always real it's just some of them represent objective reality and some don't, and the ones that don't we call 'illusions'. When we're talking about experience itself, then that is the reality we're talking about... and being wrong about the mechanics of it doesn't change the reality of the experience of it.